theodp writes: How'd you like to be deemed unworthy of a job based upon a scan of your GitHub updates? That's what proposed in a newly-published IBM patent application for Automated Analysis of Code Developer's Profile, which proposes weeding out developer candidates for certain roles based on things like the amount of changes one typically makes with each commit, how frequently and regularly one makes commits, what hours of the day one makes commits, the percentage of commits with conflicts that one resolves, and the 'depth' of one's commit comments ('shallow', 'mid-range' or 'deep'). Big Blue explains that commit or repository interactions can be used to produce a 'conclusion report' that compares a developer to others who have profiles on the repository, which helps management 'avoid wasted time with ineffective developers.

First of all, this presumes that stuff one puts on Github is serious, and not just some joke program or weekend project that was never intended to be taken seriously. It also presumes that one bothers to use Github in the first place... I prefer private repositories for most of my work.

To me, this smacks of judging someone professionally based on the Twitter posts they make in their spare time. In other words: not a valid measure, and actually a waste of everybody's time.

I immediately thought of programmers being able to analyze their own coding habits, and make adjustments to help improve efficiency, accuracy, and readability.
Any code review is a good code review, in my book.